infallible error!

[BigNorsk]

Sounds like the Papal Bull is specifically calling the issue a matter of faith. If the church cannot even distinguish properly in what area something belongs, then how can it ever be assured that it is correct.

Let us take the eternal virginity of Mary. Virginity or the loss thereof is a matter of science, not faith, we would call it biology. Therefore, if the Pope is not infallible in areas of science, he has no standing to proclaim Mary's virginity dogma.

Marv

 

[Hap]

Sounds like the Papal Bull is specifically calling the issue a matter of faith. If the church cannot even distinguish properly in what area something belongs, then how can it ever be assured that it is correct.

Let us take the eternal virginity of Mary. Virginity or the loss thereof is a matter of science, not faith, we would call it biology. Therefore, if the Pope is not infallible in areas of science, he has no standing to proclaim Mary's virginity dogma.

Marv

The eternal virginity of Mary is a moral decision and has nothing to do with science.

 

[BigNorsk]

How would it be a moral decision? There is nothing sinful in Mary having sexual relations with Joseph. He did after all take her as his wife. Whether or not she is a virgin is not moral but simply a biological statement of fact.

Marv

 

[Hap]

How would it be a moral decision? There is nothing sinful in Mary having sexual relations with Joseph. He did after all take her as his wife. Whether or not she is a virgin is not moral but simply a biological statement of fact.

Marv

You are correct, using the word "moral" implies right from wrong and sexual relation with your spouse is not a sin. But I still do not understand how making a decision to remain a virgin for the rest of your life has anything to do with science. I am sure if you what to discuss this further you could start a thread in the Mariology forum.

 

[simonthezealot]

Sounds like the Papal Bull is specifically calling the issue a matter of faith.

Furthermore, the councel of Trent had this to say about the interpretation of scripture being a faith issue. Which directly ties to there evaluation of scripture to determine their stance on the copernican theory...

The Fourth Session​

Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

 

[Hap]

That's a funny statement coming from you

What of me do you know?

After reading several of your post and the thread you started in GT on this very topic it is safe to say that you do not agree with the Catholic Church on many topics, that seems to be your main goal in the numerous post I have read. It is pointless to continue this thread your mind has already been made up about the Catholic Church.

 

[simonthezealot]

After reading several of your post and the thread you started in GT on this very topic it is safe to say that you do not agree with the Catholic Church on many topics, that seems to be your main goal in the numerous post I have read. It is pointless to continue this thread your mind has already been made up about the Catholic Church.

Your right, I have studied the Catholic church in-depth and yes my mind is made up... I am not here to change Hap's mind only try to open others to a different consideration, to show the other side of what Rome claims as their infallible truths.

Christ be with you my friend,
Simon

 

[BrendanMark]

The doctrine of ex cathedra was only defined in 1870, long after the condemnation of Galileo, and not all papel statements or bulls are ex cathedra. The following list are the only ones I know of:

Tome to Flavian, 449
Letter of Pope Agatho to the Third Council of Constaninople, 680
Benedictus Deus, 1336
Cum occasione, 1653
Auctorem fidei, 1794
Infallibus Deus, 1854
Munificentissimus Deus, 1950

 

[weakestlink33]

The doctrine of ex cathedra was only defined in 1870, long after the condemnation of Galileo, and not all papel statements or bulls are ex cathedra. The following list are the only ones I know of:

Tome to Flavian, 449
Letter of Pope Agatho to the Third Council of Constaninople, 680
Benedictus Deus, 1336
Cum occasione, 1653
Auctorem fidei, 1794
Infallibus Deus, 1854
Munificentissimus Deus, 1950

Are you sure it has been used that many times? I attended Catholic school, and I have been taught that Papal Infallibility has only been used two times (and one was on the bull that declared papal infallibility)

 

[david01]

My goodness! I am amazed that anyone takes Papal infallibility seriously today, much less attempts to defend it. Especially when the vast majority of professing Roman Catholics utterly reject the teaching of the Church (by the way, for the record, not an infallible dogma) against the usage of any form of contraception except "natural" birth control.

It is also interesting to note that the numbers of Catholics who attend Mass are plummeting as witnessed by the closure and demolition of large numbers of Catholic churchs, especially in large cities such as Chicago. This is in the face of official member statistics showing steady growth in membership in the RCC.

If the jibbering defenders of Papal infallibility will ever wake up, they might realize that they are off in a corner attempting to put out the fire with a half-empty seltzer bottle while the house is burning around them.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hap;After reading several of your post and the thread you started in GT on this very topic it is safe to say that you do not agree with the Catholic Church on many topics, that seems to be your main goal in the numerous post I have read.

You say that like its a bad thing.

It is pointless to continue this thread your mind has already been made up about the Catholic Church.

Anything said against the RCC is pointless?

But I still do not understand how making a decision to remain a virgin for the rest of your life has anything to do with science

She didn't make that decision. That she did is pure conjecture, against the preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Hap]

Quote:
Hap;After reading several of your post and the thread you started in GT on this very topic it is safe to say that you do not agree with the Catholic Church on many topics, that seems to be your main goal in the numerous post I have read.
You say that like its a bad thing. Just calling it like I see it, was this a false statment?
Quote:
It is pointless to continue this thread your mind has already been made up about the Catholic Church.
Anything said against the RCC is pointless? Did I say that? It's in regards to debating Simon.

Quote:
But I still do not understand how making a decision to remain a virgin for the rest of your life has anything to do with science
She didn't make that decision. That she did is pure conjecture, against the preponderance of circumstantial evidence. You lost me!

 

[Rick Otto]

You don't know about His brothers & sisters?
Or is that a set up for disagreement on scripture meaning?

I can live relatively comfortably with disagreement (I've been married to a strong-headed woman for 22+ years), until it begins to show up in legislation that would eliminate democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech(see Syllabus of Errors), or gun ownership.

Locked, loaded, and waiting for your reply.

 

[Hap]

You don't know about His brothers & sisters?
Or is that a set up for disagreement on scripture meaning?

I can live relatively comfortably with disagreement (I've been married to a strong-headed woman for 22+ years), until it begins to show up in legislation that would eliminate democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech(see Syllabus of Errors), or gun ownership.

Locked, loaded, and waiting for your reply.

I really to not understand where you are going with this? What is it about me saying that it was pointless in debating Simon any further that started your reply?

 

[GeratTzedek]

from Newadvent.

Infallibility


In general,exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. In this article the subject will be treated under the following heads....


See why this should be an issue to all whom follow her "infallible teaching"?

What I see is that by this definition, Catholics would NOT consider that Papal bull to have been an infallible statement, as it was not concerning doctrine and morals.

This whole thread is nothing but a hostile attack on the Catholic church by those who know nothing of what it actually teaches.

 

[david01]

I am always surprised when my good Catholic friends paint themselves into a corner, claiming that they alone know all there is about Catholicism and non-Catholics are entirely ignorant. For your own good, at least admit there is a possibility you don't know everything about what, at best, is an extremely complex church and that there may actually be non-Catholics who do know a few things, including a few that may be new to you.

 

[Rick Otto]

Amen, dave.
"...those who know nothing of what it actually teaches."
Sounded a little... hostile!

 

[simonthezealot]

Look at this part...
preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faithand morals

What I see is that by this definition, Catholics would NOT consider that Papal bull to have been an infallible statement, as it was not concerning doctrine and morals.

Now consider this, if a person is condemned and removed from the church, therefore removing ones ability to be saved because as a good roman knows outside the "church" there is NO salvation...How are these bulls not a matter of faith???

 

[simonthezealot]

So we can safely assume this is a matter of faith then?